Given the lack of evidence that it exists, unless evidence comes to light I will assume it doesn't. Just like I assume that there isn't a cosmic space kitten waiting outside my back door right now - my blinds are closed so technically there could be, but based on the lack of evidence for that viewpoint I'm going to go with no, there is no cosmic space kitten outside my back door.
The reason why I phrase it specifically that was is because it leaves it inherently open - if there begins to be a scientific consensus on God existing based on their inquiries, it allows my thoughts to change on the subject.
I kind of figured that's what you meant. It would be most accurate to say something like "Scientific evidence doesn't support the existence of a creator God, therefore such a God
probably doesn't exist." If we are being truly scientific, we are open to the possibility that our understanding may change if new information becomes available.
However, I can't understate the importance of the notion that spiritual inquiry is fundamentally different from scientific inquiry. The scientific endeavor is primarily concerned with exteriors and surfaces, while the spiritual endeavor is concerned mostly with interiors and depth.
To be a little more clear, imagine a person whose brain activity is being monitored. We can see that certain neurotransmitters are active. We can see where the electrical activity is happening, for example, in the speech center or the fear center. These are all exterior realities, which we can map out.
But the map doesn't and can't reveal the person's interior depth. To know what thoughts are happening along with the fear response or the empathy response, you must talk to that person. In other words, they must disclose their interiors to you. And you will have an accurate picture of that person's interior as long as they are interpreting their depths accurately, and you are understanding them properly.
It's similar to the difference between studying society and studying culture. A social researcher (in the sense that I'm using 'social' - in contrast with 'cultural') would be concerned with the exterior structures, like how a tribal rain dance affects the observable, map-able behavior of the people. But a cultural researcher would be more concerned with what the rain dance means to the people; how they feel about it, how they understand it.
Both the interior and exterior components of the rain dance are related, but irreducible to each other. It's the same with a person's inner experience and their outer physiochemical behavior.
So, and this is my point, were we to try to use data about neurotransmitter and electrical activity in the brain to
prove the specific details of a person's inner thought-stream, we'd be making a methodological error. Interior spaces simply don't disclose themselves to exterior methods of inquiry.
